In Wisconsin, a veteran with only his or her Veterans Affairs (VA) ID card will be turned away from the polls. "Unjust" and "unconscionable" don't cover this — we need uglier words to describe the disfranchisement of citizens who've served.
I met Sam Bulmer (pictured above) in Milwaukee at VETS Place Central, a shelter which provides transitional housing to homeless veterans. Sam spent 13 of his 63 years in the U.S. Air Force, serving some of that time with the Air Force Training Command. In Iceland, he served as an instructor during preparations for the Iran hostage crisis mission. Sam has no accepted photo ID card for voting in Wisconsin, but he has his VA ID card hanging around his neck. And he can't get a state ID card for free? Actually, no. The Division of Motor Vehicles won't believe Sam is a U.S. citizen until he shows them a certified copy of his birth certificate from Kansas, a document he can't obtain because Kansas wants him to show ID to get it. Sam isn't living off the grid or on the margins — he's worked for General Electric as a trainer on nuclear power plant control room simulation and is currently interviewing for jobs.
Last November, I sat with over 60 veterans like Sam in the basement of VETS Place Central where we talked about Wisconsin's new voter ID law. The vets stood when they spoke. One wanted to know why a military service ID card is good under the new law, but a photo ID card issued by the VA isn't. The VA ID has the veteran's name, a photo, and, if applicable, a special eligibility indicator, such as Service Connected, Purple Heart, or former POW. I didn't have an answer for the soldier — I don't think anyone does. I could tell they were shocked and angry, and rightfully so. That veteran who asked the question hit the nail on the head. Walking back to my car, I scribbled his point down on my legal pad, and the next morning, it was a claim in our lawsuit. The ACLU brought suit to defend the right of veterans to vote with their VA ID cards, because of the outcry in that room.
The two other veteran-plaintiffs in the ACLU's case both come from Chicago. Rickie Harmon served in the U.S. Army. Since he got out, he's drawn designs for electroplating equipment, worked with the Salvation Army, packed IV bags at Abbott Labs, and cleaned dishes after recruit meals at Naval Station Great Lakes. He's now in a work therapy program trying to make the transition to a permanent housekeeping position at the VA medical center. The law tells someone like Rickie that being a veteran isn't enough to vote in this country — he needs a seal of approval from the same agency that administers driving tests. Carl Ellis lacks a copy of his birth certificate. He's been living on food stamps, dealing with medical issues, and can't spare the money to pay for a certified copy of his birth certificate. He's told us: "If I can serve my country, I should be able to vote for who runs it."
This issue is coming to a head. Gil Paar, an Air Force veteran in Mt. Pleasant, Wis., recently . Even though he had a Wisconsin driver's license, he went to the polls and insisted on using his VA ID card to vote. It looks like he caught the attention of some state legislators, and we hope they come to their senses. The men and women who have served this country will be watching.
Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”